get_design_templates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful context that these templates feed proposal creation, but says nothing about result size, ordering, pagination, or whether the list is workspace-scoped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose arrives immediately. Slightly loose phrasing ("which are used to create new proposals") but nothing that wastes the reader's time.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could still say what a template record contains (notably the ID an agent would pass to create_proposal). That linkage is arguably the most important thing to state and is only hinted at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No conflicting or missing parameter meaning is implied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists available design templates") and adds the functional role — used to create new proposals. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighboring get_proposal_templates, get_email_templates, and get_text_templates, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With four template-listing siblings in the toolset, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to guess which template list feeds a proposal-creation workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.